Find Models

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful ordering semantics not in the annotations: results are ranked by rating, each model is pinned to its cheapest listing, and unrated models are appended cheapest-first — behavior an agent needs to interpret the result set.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the primary content (ranked models meeting limits) leads. The telegraphic style ('with prices per 1M tokens, Arena rating and prompt size') is dense but readable, though the sentence is somewhat clause-stacked.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to enumerate return fields, and it is adequate for a discovery tool whose six parameters are all optional and mostly documented. The gap is routing: for a tool sitting among nine siblings with overlapping model-selection purposes, the absence of any disambiguation leaves the agent to guess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents task, maker, needs, min_context and max_output_price; only 'limit' lacks a description. The description adds only the loose phrase 'meet the limits', which does not clarify filtering semantics beyond what the schema fields already state, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description makes clear it returns a ranked list of models for a given kind of work, filtered by limits, with prices, Arena rating and prompt size — a distinct scope from siblings like compare_models or price_history. It never names an alternative to differentiate against, and the verb is implied rather than stated, but the resource and output shape are unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives, despite nine siblings in the family, several of which (compare_models, suggest_for_project, not_yet_priced) overlap conceptually. The agent must infer from the name alone when this tool is the right call versus a comparison or estimation tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.